A modern lifestyle brand redefining motherhood

Earlier this year, my 5-year-old son was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.  The diagnosis did not come as a complete surprise.


Over the previous year, my husband and I had grown increasingly aware of our son’s socially averse behavior and rigid thinking. He avoided eye contact with most people and melted down if routines or food weren’t precisely as expected. And he seemed not to understand – or even be concerned with – social cues.

Still, despite his social and behavioral challenges, my son had unusual abilities.

He had taught himself to read when he was four and was a book lover with an incredible memory. His singular focus over the previous year had been learning everything – EVERYTHING – about outer space, writing “books” about the solar system and drawing thousands of pages of the planets in fine detail, including the hundreds of moons which he knew by name.

He often spoke like an adult and could sit and focus on tasks for long stretches of time. Although his introverted nature was not unlike many of our nerdy, socially awkward family members, we knew he probably had Asperger’s syndrome, that particular part of the autism spectrum that applies to kids like him: verbal, focused acquirers of information who can’t seem to make sense of the social world around them.

The moment the developmental pediatrician confirmed that our son had Autism Spectrum Disorder (Asperger’s syndrome having been folded into a broader umbrella diagnosis in 2013), we found ourselves part of the strange fellowship of parents with children on the autism spectrum who are told to look at their child’s challenges and strengths with new eyes.

While it was a relief to have an explanation for the behavioral challenges we were confronting on a daily basis, in the context of an autism diagnosis, our son’s precocious ability to read was reframed as a “splinter skill.”

His unusual ability to focus was “perseverating.” And his passion for data and facts was determined to be a “classic sign of autism.”  “I wish I had better news for you,” the doctor said apologetically as we left his office, “but at least some of these kids are really smart!”

We were frustrated. How was it possible that his strengths and abilities were pathological?  In the months that followed, we waded through the morass of behavioral, dietary, psychiatric and educational advice, becoming more confounded. The dominant focus on autism seemed to be on research into causes, preventions, and cures. Why? Where was the chorus of experts providing us with advice on how we, as parents, could champion and channel our son’s abilities while helping him cope in a world that would always seem alien and confusing?

For a parent of a child on the autism spectrum, Steve Silberman’s NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity is nothing short of a revelation.

Silberman’s premise, which he makes clear from the beginning, is not only that is there a place in the world for autistic intelligence, but that one of our greatest challenges as a society (especially given the rising number of autism diagnoses, which currently stands at one in 68)  is creating a world in which that intelligence is fully utilized, where neurodiversity is not just “accommodated,” but celebrated.

The book grew out of reporting Silberman did for Wired magazine, largely in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, one of the regions where the “epidemic” of autism has been most closely watched (and where two crucial countercultures – that of the nerdy tech sector and the vaccine-fearing counterculture – find strange intersections).

The book begins with a lengthy history lesson, and indeed, it is through Silberman’s sweeping and lovingly detailed history of the evolution of autism that the reader unlocks the understanding of how our society came to our current understanding and response to autistic people today.

Although autism has always been present in humans, its characteristics were not fully articulated, nor was it identified as a unique disorder, until the 1930s, when it was “discovered” simultaneously by Hans Asperger in Austria and Leo Kanner in Baltimore.  Both Asperger and Kanner noticed behavioral similarities amongst some children brought to their respective clinics. These were children who had difficulty making eye contact and with social interaction were preoccupied with rules and systems, and had extraordinary abilities in areas like math, art, music, and science.

Asperger was convinced that it was possible for children with this disorder (which he called “autistic psychopathy”) to thrive with the help of tailored teaching methods that would draw on their fascinations, and he foresaw important roles for them in contributing to the betterment of society.

Asperger was also the first person to recognize that autism was clearly a continuum, with nonverbal and verbal children sharing core characteristics. He called these children, affectionately, his “little professors,” since many of them were prone to talk about their pet interests at length. As the Nazis accelerated their plans to rid society of “mental defectives” with a large-scale campaign to euthanize disabled children and adults, Asperger gave the world’s first public talk on autism, in which he defended his patients’ right to exist.

Cognizant of the Nazis’ intolerance of visibly disabled children, Asperger focused on what he called the “most promising cases” of children in his care, arguing that these children were not only capable of accomplishing great things in the world, but that their social difficulties were inextricably linked to their gifts. His framing of autism likely saved the lives of many children, but before he was able to disseminate his work widely, his clinic was destroyed in an air raid–and with it, the case studies of all of his patients.

Silberman’s examination of Asperger’s life and contributions is made all the more poignant when one considers Leo Kanner’s radically different understanding of autism, which was to shape the diagnoses and approaches to treatment for decades to come.

Kanner, who saw only the most challenging cases of autism, determined it to be a very rare disorder consisting of a narrow range of behaviors. More significantly, he promoted the idea that autism had somehow been triggered by cold and distant parenting styles. “Refrigerator Mothers” were likely to blame, and only psychiatry could ameliorate the damage that had been done.

By emphasizing the most debilitating aspects of autism, and by implicating parents, Kanner paved the way for decades of mistreatment of autistic children.

The chapters detailing the lifelong institutionalization of children in horrific conditions where shackling, neglect and corporal punishment were the norm, as well as a chapter on the darker side of treatments such as Applied Behavior Analysis that are still widely used today, will be particularly difficult for parents to read.

Perhaps most significantly, Kanner’s work shaped the current emphasis on finding causes, prevention and “cures” for autism, rather than focusing on expanding services and designing adaptive technologies and spaces for autistic people. It also ensured that autism remained stigmatizing for families–a legacy that sadly persists today. From the moment of diagnosis onwards, parents are told to view their child’s strengths as deficits, to question the causes, and to hope for a cure.

It wasn’t until the 1970s that Asperger’s work was rediscovered by the British cognitive psychologist Lorna Wing, who was seeking answers to the variety of autistic traits she was discovering in the general population.

Largely due to her efforts, the clinical definition of autism was expanded to include the true spectrum it is today, and Silberman makes clear that it is the broadened diagnostic criteria that have been responsible for the rise in autism cases.

In addition to Asperger and a handful of researchers willing to question the status quo, the true heroes of Silberman’s book are parents and autistic people themselves who have fought for the full inclusion and acceptance of autistic people in schools, workplaces and the public sphere.  Without the parental advocacy groups of the 1970s, disabled children would still be denied the right to a public school education; and parents are still on the front lines of fighting for services for their children in their schools and communities every single day.

Autistic people themselves have also stepped out of the shadows with the rallying cry “Nothing About Us Without Us,” proudly carrying the autistic label and insisting on full inclusion in policy discussions having an impact on their lives.

The neurodiversity movement is leading efforts to promote social support systems and highlight the necessity and value of neurological differences. And while Silberman’s focus is on autism, the concept of neurodiversity extends to anyone whose brains are wired differently, including those with dyslexia, ADD/ADHD, and mood disorders.

Silberman, who spent years with autistic individuals and their families to write this book, is  remarkably restrained when detailing the medical interventions approaching quackery that certain members of the medical community have pushed on parents desperate to help their children. However, he clearly believes that we need to redirect at least some of the money that is being poured into the research identifying causes into expanding services and destigmatizing autism, and he makes a persuasive argument based on history alone.

A portion of Silberman’s work chronicles autistic innovators: from Henry Cavendish to Nikolas Tesla to Temple Grandin to Silicon Valley’s geeky workforce, many innovations in the modern world have come from autistic minds.

I recently got together with a group of parents who have young autistic children. As we shared stories of parenting our kids, two common themes emerged: the extraordinary abilities our kids have, and the immense challenges we all face in getting access to the services and support that our kids need. One of the strangest things about receiving an autism diagnosis for your child, in fact, is simultaneously receiving the message that your family is now part of a ballooning “epidemic,” even as the experience of advocating for your child often feels like a solitary exercise in having to proffer the same explanations and reinvent the same wheel, over and over.

Parents like myself are mired in the daily worries, exhaustion, and yes, joys of raising a child on the spectrum.

For me, the greatest contribution of NeuroTribes is that it reinforces and gives historical vindication to our instincts to create learning and living environments that respond to our children’s challenges while supporting their abilities.

That Silberman combines this analysis with so much warmth and respect for his subjects–autistic children, their families, and their champions–makes the book not just part of a parent’s toolkit, but also a source of wisdom and companionship, as if the caring hero of Silberman’s narrative, Hans Asperger, were still among us.

Who said motherhood doesn't come with a manual?

Subscribe to get inspiration and super helpful ideas to rock your #momlife. Motherhood looks amazing on you.

Already a subscriber? Log in here.

Going back to work after having a baby is hard. Regaining your footing in a world where working mothers are so often penalized is tough, and (just like most things during the postpartum period) it takes time.

The challenges we face as working women returning from a maternity leave can be so different from those we faced before, it can feel like we're starting over from scratch. But mothers will not be deterred, even if our return to the working world doesn't go exactly as planned.

We are resilient, as Serena Williams proved at Wimbledon this weekend.

She lost to Angelique Kerber in the final, just 10 months after welcoming daughter Alexis Olympia and recovering from a physically and emotionally traumatic birth experience.

Williams didn't get her eighth Wimbledon title this weekend, but when we consider all the challenges she (and all new moms) faced in resuming her career, her presence was still a huge achievement.

"It was such an amazing tournament for me, I was really happy to get this far!" Williams explained in an emotional post-match interview.

"For all the moms out there, I was playing for you today. And I tried. I look forward to continuing to be back out here and doing what I do best."

The loss at Wimbledon isn't what she wanted, of course, but Williams says it does not mean there won't be wins in her near future.

"These two weeks have showed me I can really compete and be a contender to win grand slams. This is literally just the beginning. I took a giant step at Wimbledon but my journey has just began."

When asked what she hopes other new moms take away from her journey, Williams noted her postpartum recovery was really difficult, and hopes that other moms who face challenges early in motherhood know that they don't have to give up on whatever dreams they have for themselves, whether it involves working or not.

"Honestly, I feel like if I can do it, they can do it. I'm just that person, that vessel that's saying, 'You can be whatever you want to be.' If you want to go back to workand to me, after becoming a mom, I feel like there's no pressure to do that because having a child is a completely full-time job," she said.

"But to those that do want to go back, you can do it, you can really do it."

Thank you, Serena. You may not have won, but this was still a victory.

You might also like:

Since baby Crew became the newest member of Chip and Joanna Gaines' family three weeks ago, his proud parents have been keeping the world updated, sharing sweet snaps of their youngest and even giving us a glimpse into his nursery.

Now, Chip Gaines is showing off a pic that proves there is nothing cuter than a floppy, sleepy baby.

"My heart is full..." the proud father of five captioned the photo he posted on his Instagram and Twitter accounts.

Earlier this week Crew's mama shared how she gets him so sleepy in the first place, posting an Instagram Story showing how she walks around the family's gardens on their Waco, Texas farm to lull her newborn boy to sleep.



The couple are clearly enjoying every single moment of Crew's babyhood. As recently as 7 days ago Chip was still sporting his hospital bracelet. Joanna says with each child he's worn his maternity ward ID until it finally wears off. We can't blame Chip for wanting to make the newborn phase last as long as possible.

You might also like:

It was a changing table must-have a generation ago, but these days, many parents are forgoing baby powder, and now, the leading manufacturer of the sweet smelling powder was dealt a big financial blow.

Johnson & Johnson was just ordered to pay almost $4.7 billion to 22 women who sued, alleging baby powder caused their ovarian cancer.

A St. Louis jury says the women are right, but what does The American Academy of Pediatrics say about baby powder?

It was classified "a hazard" before many of today's parents were even born

The organization has actually been recommending against baby powder for years, but not due to cancer risks, but inhalation risks.

Way back in 1981 the AAP declared baby powder "a hazard," issuing a report pointing out the frequency of babies aspirating the powder, which can be dangerous and even fatal in the most severe cases.

That warning didn't stop all parents from using the powder though, as its continued presence on store shelves to this day indicates.

In 1998 Dr. Hugh MacDonald, then the director of neonatology at Santa Monica Hospital and a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn, told the Los Angeles Times "Most pediatricians recommend that it not be used," adding that the consensus at the time was that "anybody using talcum powder be aware that it could cause inhalation of the talc, resulting in a pneumonic reaction."

Recent updates

A 2015 update to the AAP's Healthy Children website suggests the organization was even very recently still more concerned about the risk of aspiration than cancer risks like those alleged in the lawsuit. It suggests that parents who choose to use baby powder "pour it out carefully and keep the powder away from baby's face [as] published reports indicate that talc or cornstarch in baby powder can injure a baby's lungs."

In a 2017 interview with USA Today, Dr. David Soma, a pediatrician with the Mayo Clinic Children's Hospital, explained that baby powder use had decreased a lot over the previous five to eight years, but he didn't believe it was going to disappear from baby shower gift baskets any time soon.

"There are a lot of things that are used out of a matter of tradition, or the fact it seems to work for specific children," he said. "I'm not sure if it will get phased out or not, until we know more about the details of other powders and creams and what works best for skin conditions—I think it will stick around for a while."

Talc-based baby powder is the kind alleged to have caused ovarian cancer in the lawsuit (which Johnson & Johnson plans to appeal), but corn starch varieties of baby powder are also available and not linked to increased cancer risks as alleged in the case.


Bottom line: If you are going to use baby powder on your baby's bottom, make sure they're not getting a cloud of baby powder in their face, and if you're concerned, talk to your health care provider about alternative methods and products to use on your baby's delicate skin.

You might also like:

In the days since a The New York Times report revealed a resolution meant to encourage breastfeeding was blocked by U.S. delegates at the World Health Assembly, breastfeeding advocates, political pundits, parents, doctors—and just about everyone else—have been talking about breastfeeding, and whether or not America and other countries are doing enough to support it.

The presidents of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians say the controversy at the World Health Assembly reveals that mothers need more support when it comes to breastfeeding, while others, including The Council on Foreign Relations, suggest the national conversation needs more nuance, and less focus on the "breast is best" rhetoric.

The one thing everyone agrees on is that parents need more support when it comes to infant feeding, and in that respect, the controversy over the World Health Assembly resolution may be a good thing.

In their joint letter to the editor published in the New York Times this week, the presidents of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians, Dr. Colleen Kraft and Dr. Lisa Hollier urge "the United States and every country to protect, promote and support breast-feeding for the health of all women, children and families."

The doctors go on to describe how breastfeeding "provides protection against newborn, infant and child infections, allergies, asthma, inflammatory bowel disease and sudden infant death syndrome," and note the health benefits to mothers, including reduced risks for "breast cancer, ovarian cancer, diabetes, hypertension and heart disease.

"Helping mothers to breastfeed takes a multifaceted approach, including advancing public policies like paid family leave, access to quality child care, break time and a location other than a bathroom for expressing milk," say Kraft and Hollier.

Certainly such policies would support breastfeeding mothers (and all mothers) in America, but some critics say framing the discussion around domestic policy is a mistake, because the World Health Assembly resolution is a global matter and women and babies in other parts of the world face very different feeding challenges than we do here at home.

In an op-ed published by CNN, Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations suggests the laudable goal of breastfeeding promotion can backfire when mothers in conflict-riddled areas can't access formula due to well-meaning policy. Lemmon points to a 2017 statement by Doctors Without Borders calling for fewer barriers to formula distribution in war-torn areas.

"International organizations like UNICEF and the World Health Organization (WHO) promote breastfeeding ... and provide infant formula, but only by prescription. We believe that distributing infant formula in a conflict situation like Iraq is the only way to avoid children having to be hospitalized for malnutrition," Manuel Lannaud, the head of Doctors Without Borders Iraq mission wrote.

The various viewpoints presented this week prove that infant feeding is not a black and white issue, and policy debates should not be framed as formula versus breast milk—there is more nuance than that.

A recent study in the Journal of Pediatrics found opting to supplement with formula after first breastfeeding improves outcomes for infants and results in higher rates of breastfeeding afterward, and while the benefits of breastfeeding are numerous, they are sometimes overstated. Another recent study published in the journal PLOS Medicine found breastfeeding has no impact on a child's overall neurocognitive function by the time they are 16. Basically, parents should not be shamed for supplementing or choosing to use formula.

This, according to Department of Health and Human Services says national spokesperson Caitlin Oakley is why the HHS opposed the original draft of the breastfeeding resolution at the World Health Assembly (although critics and the initial NYT report suggest the United States delegation were acting in the interests of infant formula manufacturers).

"Many women are not able to breastfeed for a variety of reasons, these women should not be stigmatized; they should be equally supported with information and access to alternatives for the health of themselves and their babies," Oakley said in a statement.

That's true, but so is everything the presidents of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians presented in their op-ed, and that's why the U.S. should support breastfeeding policy.

Here's another truth: This is an issue with many perspectives and many voices. And we need to hear them all, because all parents need support in feeding their babies, whether it's with a breast, a bottle or both—and we're not getting it yet.

You might also like:

Motherly provides information of a general nature and is designed for educational purposes only. This site does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.Your use of the site indicates your agreement to be bound by our  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Information on our advertising guidelines can be found here.